Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KUNJU KUNJU KUTTY, S/O.PAPPY versus BABY VARGHESE, THOTTIYIL VEEDU

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


KUNJU KUNJU KUTTY, S/O.PAPPY v. BABY VARGHESE, THOTTIYIL VEEDU - WP(C) No. 16831 of 2005(D) [2007] RD-KL 9752 (7 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 16831 of 2005(D)

1. KUNJU KUNJU KUTTY, S/O.PAPPY,
... Petitioner

2. PRASANNAN, PARAYIL ANCHANIL VEEDU,

3. SUNNY, THOTTATHIL VAYALIL VEEDU,

Vs

1. BABY VARGHESE, THOTTIYIL VEEDU,
... Respondent

2. MARIAMMA VARUGHESE,

For Petitioner :SRI.P.HARIDAS

For Respondent :SRI.SATHISH NINAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :07/06/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

.......................................................... W.P.(C)No.16831 OF 2005 ...........................................................

DATED THIS THE 7TH JUNE, 2007



J U D G M E N T

Defendants 1 to 3 are the petitioners in this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. They impugn Ext.P2 findings entered by the learned Munsiff on an issue as to whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties which was raised on the basis of a contention raised by the defendants that the Panchayat is also a necessary party. The suit pertains to a pathway and the contention is that the pathway is vested in the Panchayat and is not the private pathway of the plaintiff-1st respondent. In this Court the petitioners have produced Ext.P1 resolution pertaining to a particular road within the limit of the Panchayat. There is controversy between the parties regarding the identity of the road which is mentioned in Ext.P1.

2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, Sri.Sathish Ninan, learned counsel for the 1st respondent-plaintiff would submit that the 1st respondent does not want to take any risk and will rather implead the Panchayat also as a party and seek necessary amendment of the plaint so as to incorporate appropriate reliefs since the suit as obtaining now is only for injunction.

3. In view of the above submission, I set aside Ext.P2 and WP(C)N0.16831/05 direct the learned Munsiff to allow the application, if any, filed by the 1st respondent-plaintiff to implead the Panchayat. It is open to the plaintiff to seek appropriate amendment of the plaint, after the court passes orders on the impleadment application. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

tgl WP(C)N0.16831/05


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.